I have used AOL for many years and routinely see news stories on the AOL homepage when checking email. I was concerned to see a RadarOnline article about the 9/11 defendants that used sensational language such as “devilish plot,” appeared to contain inaccurate or misleading information, and was accompanied by an apparently unrelated image.
I understand AOL aggregates content from multiple publishers, but presenting tabloid material of this quality alongside Reuters, AP and other professional news organizations gives it a level of credibility it may not deserve.
I would like AOL to review its editorial standards, content-partner screening, fact-checking requirements, and the way lower-quality sources are labeled or promoted.
A Gibson
I have used AOL for many years and routinely see news stories on the AOL homepage when checking email. I was concerned to see a RadarOnline article about the 9/11 defendants that used sensational language such as “devilish plot,” appeared to contain inaccurate or misleading information, and was accompanied by an apparently unrelated image.
I understand AOL aggregates content from multiple publishers, but presenting tabloid material of this quality alongside Reuters, AP and other professional news organizations gives it a level of credibility it may not deserve.
I would like AOL to review its editorial standards, content-partner screening, fact-checking requirements, and the way lower-quality sources are labeled or promoted.